May 15, 2012

"Yet it is a truth that workers and voters must understand — and Mitt Romney carries the almost impossible burden of explaining it. The controversy over Bain Capital won’t blow over. The only way forward is to show how his work at Bain contributed to growth, and how the excessive regulation and crony capitalism his fiercest critics advocate is a recipe for stagnation."

Mitt Romney and the GOP do not know what is coming to their end. I was in NYC and have seen ads from now till the ones after Labor Day.

He is toast. He does not know it. How ironic? We will dismantle him. He will be seen as: Failure, Cruel Boss, Predator, etc. etc. He will miss Rick and Newt. as that is how harder will be going. We will work with NYT, NPR, CNN, ABC and PBS. We will do what it takes to destroy the GOP, especially Mitt. We will take Ann, too. Just like Michelle Goldberg, who was doing exactly as we told her to do.

Byron York in the National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york#

The long-term goal was to retrain workers in order to restore manufacturing jobs in the area; Kellman took Obama by the rusted-out, closed-down Wisconsin Steel plant for a firsthand look. But the whole thing was a bit of a pipe dream, as the leaders soon discovered. “The idea was to interview these people and look at education, transferable skills, so that we could refer them to other industries,” Loretta Augustine-Herron told me as we drove by the site of the old factory, now completely torn down. “Well, they had no transferable skills. I remember interviewing one man who ran a steel-straightening machine. It straightened steel bars or something. I said, well, what did you do? And he told me he pushed a button, and the rods came in, and he pushed a button and it straightened them, and he pushed a button and it sent them somewhere else. That’s all he did. And he made big bucks doing it.”

That, of course, was one of the reasons the steel mill closed. And it became clear that neither Obama nor Kellman nor anyone else was going to change the direction of the steel industry and its unions in the United States. Somewhere along the line, everyone realized that those jobs wouldn’t be coming back.

Regulation and taxes drive a wedge between the sides of every transaction, making jobs and products that were marginal suddenly wealth-destroying, as well as what would have been wealth-creating replacement jobs.

So Romney has to kill off regulation and taxes, and explain why.

Obama believes, or anyway thinks you can be made to believe, that wealth destruction in greater volume is the way to go.

The big loss of jobs that's required is in government. We have too many tax takers and not enough payers. The only way to a successful, prosperous future is people moving from public to private payrolls

President Barack Obama’s decision in February 2011 to hold the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina looked like a bold move to reclaim a state he’d won in 2008. Today, it’s more like an awkward fit.

The state’s Democratic Party is mired in a sexual harassment scandal. Voters just approved a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which conflicts with Obama’s view on the issue. Convention fundraising has been slow, and labor unions tapped to fill the financial gap are angry the convention will be in a city -- Charlotte -- with no unionized hotels and in a state where compulsory union membership or the payment of dues is prohibited as an employment condition.

North Carolina’s 9.7 percent unemployment rate is above the national average and one of the host city’s top employers --Bank of America (BAC) -- has announced job reductions

We will win. We are spreading things just to make Mitt over-confident. We have the simulation working and it shows we will win by 20% every-where - in SC, NC, TX, etc. You know Mitt will not even win of his three home states: MA, NH, and CA. We will get all three. Mitt is going to be the worse loser than Mondale.

The only way forward is to show how his work at Bain contributed to growth, and how the excessive regulation and crony capitalism his fiercest critics advocate is a recipe for stagnation."

So excessive regulation and crony capitalism destroyed companies....except the company named Bain Capital, which made Romney rich beyond his wildest dreams by fucking over the workers that worked at those companies. Plenty of utter fools that will buy that unfortunately.

So... Garage, Politico, you two do know that Romney's already cut one ad with jobs his work saved, in a community that is growing and thriving? Do you really want him to cut more and more commercials with the theme: "Mitt Romney: He Got Us Working."? I'm just asking, because I think, ideally, you'd want him to do anything but that. Just tossing out ideas, sounding board like, with you, but I'd think "Romney: Keeper of Jobs" is not a winning campaign for Obama.

How many jobs has Barack Obama created? And how many jobs has Barack Obama lured back from overseas to America?

None and none are the right answers.

Mitt Romney isn't on weak ground here, even though the Obama commercial-maker hope to convince voters that Romney is. The ads do nothing but divert attention away from the dismal failure of the Obama administration to create conditions that make it possible for new job creation.

While he wasn't always successful, at least Romney created jobs. Did Obama?

Here's an article about GE Medical Systems - a BIG player in health care equipment - moving its headquarters form Wisconsin to China.

GE Medical Systems, a division of General Electric, the massive corporation run by Obama crony Jeffrey Immelt, taking jobs overseas.

They can piss about Bain Capital all they want, at least Bain had as it purpose the creation of jobs. The Obama administration has as its purpose the creation of crony capitalism that allows corporations to escape taxation and move entire divisions overseas, all the while granting White House access to major donors.

Anybody know how to write a whistling past the graveyard noise for garbage?

=================================================

Lyle Balistreri wasn't scheduled to speak during Wednesday night's "Reclaim Wisconsin" rally at Serb Hall, but took the stage anyway to lash out against what he called the "ugly partisan politics" that led to the rejection of a mining permit bill.

He singled out the 16 senate democrats who voted no including Milwaukee State Senator Spencer Coggs who was also in attendance.

Balistreri represents more than 15-thousand construction trades workers in southeast Wisconsin, men and women who would have benefited from the mining reform bill.

It's not that hard to explain the dynamic nature of economic growth. People intuitively understand that the horse-drawn buggy business was necessarily impacted by the development of automobiles, that manual typewriter makers suffered with the advent of word processing PCs, and that the market for Kodak film took a downturn with the popularity of digital cameras. Those who made the products on the losing end of those transitions neceaasily had to find new jobs. So it has always been and so it will always be (except in command-control economies).

The difficulty arises when you try to explain that (or anything else) to the marginal voter who ulimately decides elections. The attention span is so limited that empty emotional appeals, like this Obama add, may sway them. Obama's problem is that such voters are marginal in many other ways, and are quite likely to be feeling the effects of economic hard times in ways that make them eager for a change of course.

Obama is trumpeting his turnaround of the auto industry which will add something like 167,000 jobs by 2015. Fact is American automakers are employing only 171K people right now, down from 202K in 2008. That makes the addition of 167K jobs a bit over the top. There is a difference between jobs saved and jobs created. No matter what happened with GM and Chrysler, somebody would be producing American cars in their factories under any cicumstance.

So we can talk about a few jobs in Missouri or we can talk about the millions of jobs sacrificed by the economic stupidity of the Obama socialists.

US Taxpayers have skin in the auto bailout game of $100 billion, so that Obama could bail out the unions and the corporatists running the auto companies. Back in the good old days, before union greed set in big-time, the automakers employed 1.2 million people. Now taxpayers await the union default on underfunded legacy benefits for the over-compensated retirees.

Yeah - lets do four more years of Solyndra-like investments and watch the electric grid brownouts when we have no coal powered backup generation.

Romney looks upon capitalism as a dray horse. It might need blinders and an occasional giddyup, but it knows the route and the way home. Obama looks upon captalism as a circus tiger. It needs to be caged, defanged, declawed, whipped and, if it gets too frisky, shot.

The dots are it would have been an environmental disaster and it was even too much for a Republican, who effectively put an end to Gogebic's venture. Gogebic could mine the land they leased tomorrow if they really wanted to. There is nothing stopping them.

Michael Haz - "They can piss about Bain Capital all they want, at least Bain had as it purpose the creation of jobs."======================No, Bain was not organized by investors and business pros to spend their money creating jobs.

Bain was organized by investors and business pros to make money for themselves.Funny how that works. Henry Ford and Bill Gates and Carlos Slim and the Mittal Family had the same sort of general idea.But by being successful, Romney and Co created far more jobs, saved more jobs - than were lost. A nice side effect of capitalism when it is not damaged by Free Trade, mass illegal immigration, or hiring is damages by inordinantly too much government regs and taxes.

Meanwhile, you can look at Black Messiah's life and see he neither created nor saved nor lost a single job before he became a national poll.And any jobs he created or saved as a politican - rested on taxpayers paying, or indebting their kids to China for it's IOUs.

And all Obama did as a lawyer, law lecturer, pol, or "community activist" was enable more people not to get jobs, but suck at the Federal and State of Illinois and City of Chicago teat.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

I don't know why, but tonight it especially pains me to see so many people behave like such children. Obama makes an ad, Romney makes one, both are liars but you - the citizens who rule this place - still use these lies to dig in.

Romney tortured his dog, Obama tasted one - oh you guys are just brilliant.

This is our politics, and it's so below us as Americans it's crushing.

Just like with the cultism you wallow in, you refuse to wake up and be human beings - American citizens, especially - any longer. You'd rather be grinning retards, and this stay our asylum.

Romney created no magic at Bain. He was a greedy, cynical headhunter and anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar. There's nothing to be admired there. He didn't create wealth, he took it. Can't you see that?

Obama's never created anything either. He, too, is a cynical manipulator, playing with imagery, toying with the lives of those below him. And anyone who can't admit that is a liar as well.

We should all be so ashamed. We're wasting so much time. We are probably the least productive generation of Americans in history. Our vision is so warped we can't even make a fucking movie about the future without it taking place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, created by us, or featuring some cult leader fooling everyone into believing some nonsense that's supposed to be basis for society - as we crush somebody else within that society. I watch you, and I see it, I see it all.

We are a poor, pathetic creature now. Our ancestors should be glad they're dead. There is nothing within to redeem us and we may just be irredeemable. We are rats in a maze we've made ourselves, but we've forgotten to lay out cheese.

What we have to get is, if this isn't too religious for you, righteous. Maybe I should say we need to get right, correct, true, honest, ethical, to get integrity. As in moral. Moral in the sense of behaving well. This requires more than smart, it means reacquiring a sense of healthy shame. A sense of knowing we're not always right or justified, and we need to change. We need to be better at becoming better.

Creative destruction is bad when it happens to you. No doubt about it. I've had jobs disappear because the business I worked for went under.

But, this is the thing, government is supposed to be run for the benefit of everyone. And that includes the future, too.

The weird liberal fascination for factory jobs confuses me. Those jobs suck. I've worked in a factory setting. It was the worst job I've ever had, $18 an hour be damned. Liberal writers who gush about assembly lines need to work on one. Complete idiocy. If those jobs go away and people have to do something else that's a win for progress.

There are always winners and losers, but government is supposed to balance that with the greater good. In the long run we're better off being innovators rather than reactionaries. That's what got us this far.

People don't form unions when they love their jobs. It's shitty jobs that no one wants to do that become unionized. Workers figure that if they are working a shit job they better get paid. If you want to see a lot of angry people, toil in a unionized workplace.

What about government unions? Well, they hate their jobs, too. Teachers have terrible attrition rates, for instance.

The presence of a union is an indicator that maybe a job should be done away with if it's at all possible. Why make future generations miserable?

Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Mitt and two other guys. They spent a year raising $37 million to start the new operation. Bain Capital now has $66 billion in assets. They must be doing something right.

"'The difficult truth that virtually no politician is prepared to acknowledge is that the road to job creation runs through job destruction.'"

I think I've heard something similar before...ah, yes!...during the Viet Nam war a U.S. military official said, about the bombing of a Vietnamese village: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

Yes, well, I'm sure all those who caught in the machinery of history and lose their jobs or homes or villages or families or lives can take comfort in knowing their personal destruction creates the fertilizer for a glorious future!

"There are always winners and losers, but government is supposed to balance that with the greater good. In the long run we're better off being innovators rather than reactionaries. That's what got us this far."

That is fair enough as it goes; certainly we don't need to be propping up obsolete industries.

However, one might argue it is in our interest, in the government's interest, to at least present some token difficulties to the child and slave labor systems that drive much of what some call the "global economy."

Cookie....What diminishing resources, other than the nearly useless Windmills that diminish bald eagles?

Digital management and robotics have eliminated 80% of the lost jobs since 1992.

The decline component needed for a vibrant economy today is an increasing number of under 40 families raising lots of children. That's who consumes the industrial output, the educational output, the housing output, the entertainment output and finally pays for our retirements.

Robert Cook said..."The big loss of jobs that's required is in government. We have too many tax takers and not enough payers."

You don't think government employees pay taxes, or go out to dinner, or buy consumer goods, or rent apartments or purchase homes and cars?

Yes. But they produce nothing.

"The only way to a successful, prosperous future is people moving from public to private payrolls."

Why?

The short answer is; The private sector creates wealth. The public sector consumes the wealth created. What is wealth? It isn't just money. Like I said before, money is just the counter in the game. Every time someone creates a product others want or a service that they need, that someone creates wealth.

[T]he main drivers of projected deficits over the next decade are the wars of the oughts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” — unemployment insurance spending, lower tax burdens — built into existing policy to combat economic downturns. Recovery measures by Bush and Obama caused a short-term spike in deficits but have mostly phased out and thus represent only modest fractions of the national debt.

If you really care (which I don't think you do), then let the Bush tax cuts expire...

@machine - Blame Bush, the default position when all else fails, right?

How about this: The party in control of the Senate and White House has failed to introduce a budget for more than three years, even though introducing a budget is required by law. The majority party has no desire to be held accountable for its spending, and therefore, spends as much as it wishes to spend, even though so doing creates massive deficits.

I recall a line form Dr. Zhivago in which the engineer making the dam said "if we had a couple of earth movers we could be a year ahead," when he was lamenting the use of humans to dig the dam. So sure, everyone can have a job if you get rid of competition, but people might not have much of a lifestyle.

The left, or these leftists anyway, have a static view of the world. If the population - world or in a defined area - is static and the wealth is a fixed amount of whatever, you can imagine an ideal society directed by an intelligent benevolent bureaucracy so that everybody receive about the same benefits and the economy consists of just divvying up the fixed amount of wealth and churning it around.

However, in high school I was taught that the world population was 2.2 billion, and we are now well past 7 billion.There is nothing static about this, nor about the current estimated total wealth.

In order to support this growing population - and it continues to grow - it is necessary for the world economy to grow, and the only way for that to happen is that new things come to the fore. No one can predict what these new things will be, so it is necessary to allow people the freedom to drop old industries and invent new ones.

"It really is a dog fight between you and garage over who knows less about capitalism."

I haven't seen any incisive discussions here explaining why and how the private sector is in all ways and in every circumstance the best--if not only--means to achieve goals necessary to the functioning of our society. I do see a lot of parroting of the dogma and ad slogans of the free market-or-die advocates, even though it has been the reckless and criminal behavior of private sector actors who have wrought great destruction to our (and to the global) economy.

yashu - I do consider you a liar, determined to kill the messenger and fight for foolishness. The fact you're a moron is only topped by your also being a monster. Don't feel bad: you've clearly got lots of company.

John Lynch,

I don't see why someone who is willing to fire people is a bad person to have as head of the US government.

How many people have we fired this year for saying, "niggardly"? And not only was it wrong but we didn't care and felt superior after it happened. We lack common sense, and the fact so few of are aware of that, or willing to fight against it, is why having a Romney type is just asking for more trouble. An cowardly idiot as bold leader is just that.

Steve Koch,

Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Mitt and two other guys. They spent a year raising $37 million to start the new operation. Bain Capital now has $66 billion in assets. They must be doing something right.

Yeah, it's called "stealing." I used to have a friend who could shoplift an entire frozen pizza wearng nothing but swimming trunks and flip-flops. You would've thought he was a god.

traditionalguy,

Cookie....What diminishing resources,…?

What's happened to you? Recently voicing support for "gay" marriage and, here, talking to unreasonables like cook? Is this what happens when Jesus leaves your side? If so, it's a good thing he never walked with me,…

Rusty,

The private sector creates wealth.

"It's the economy, Stupid!" is only a brilliant phrase because it acknowledges you're talking to someone without a clue. Amongst the slow types, there's something about that word - creates - that seems to get obscured by that other word, wealth. They focus exclusively on the latter, like the former was nothing, when it's the whole game. Our efforts in this regard are no different.

We must become creative again, and not just worry about making money. That's how it's done.

Here's a question:

How many of you with money are financially seeding projects by smaller guys?

That's the kind of thing I NEVER read about the likes of Romney doing.

I haven't seen any incisive discussions here explaining why and how the private sector is in all ways and in every circumstance the best--if not only--means to achieve goals necessary to the functioning of our society.

Straw man.

You failed there.

even though it has been the reckless and criminal behavior of private sector actors who have wrought great destruction to our (and to the global) economy.

Actually it was the reckless behavior of Democrats, led by Barney Frank, pushing for "affordable housing" which led to the economic collapse.

"'You don't think government employees pay taxes, or go out to dinner, or buy consumer goods, or rent apartments or purchase homes and cars?'

"Yes. But they produce nothing."

Their spending creates wealth in the local economy...their income, spent locally, help keep local small business open and local citizens employed. The removal of government jobs removes that income from the local economy, hurting everyone, whether private or public sector.

There is a difference between creating wealth and redistributing wealth. Private enterprise creates wealth, government mostly redistributes wealth. Lefties tend to think in terms of zero sum game wrt economics. For example, Robert Cook said:

"There is no "glorious future of Green Energy,"--there is only a future of reduced circumstances and wars over control of diminishing resources--and who's talking about coal miners?"

We have plenty of energy right now if the lefties get out of the way. Right now we have plenty of uranium for fission. That fuel source can easily be effectively multiplied via breeder reactors. After that, in the near future, thorium will provide us plenty of cheap energy for hundreds of years. Sometime in that period we will figure out fusion.

With engineering advances at the nano level, DNA, medicine, stem cells, materials, computers, etc, our capabilities will explode. It will be possible to create a paradise on earth.

"The article I linked to claims that green energy will replace the jobs lost by coal. But that means relocating and retraining people."

Is that happening?

"Green energy," so-called, has been oversold as a solution to our energy needs. While "any little bit helps," as the saying goes, alternative energy sources are merely supplemental to carbon energy at this time and in the forseeable future.

Barring revolutionary, paradigm shifting technological innovations,alternative energy sources produce too little energy or are too expensive--or both--to be feasible as replacements for carbon energy sources. (Remember ethanol?) This means our exploding global population--all competing for available fossil fuel resources--will rapidly deplete that which is available. This will send prices skyrocketing and will result in violent conflicts--wars--over access to and control of those resources. (What do you think we're doing in the middle east? Helping people? Fighting islamo-terrorism? We're staking our claim to control the resources available there)

Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, our way of living will drastically change.

Government is by far the biggest threat to our liberty. We have seen over and over governments inflict horrendous pain on millions of people. Government power has to be limited and balanced.

Large government employing large numbers of workers corrupts democracy. This is not theoretical, the dems' sop is to buy votes through government favoritism (affirmative action, etc). If not checked, this will destroy our democracy.

Government is less efficient than private enterprise.

Government is more irritating and frustrating to deal with than private enterprise.

Government is less flexible, nimble, and imaginative than private enterprise.

Government is more susceptible to political pressure to corrupt the work process.

Which is money better--and more necessarily and appropriately--spent? Which helps keep our aged population housed and healthy, and which only wreaks death and devastation? Given that ending either would add more money back to our national budget--or cease the drain of money from it, however you wish to see it--which, if terminated, would produce the better or worse outcome for American citizen?

Their spending creates wealth in the local economy...their income, spent locally, help keep local small business open and local citizens employed. The removal of government jobs removes that income from the local economy, hurting everyone, whether private or public sector.

Their spending does not create wealth. It only shifts the markers of value (dollar amounts).

Arguing that a govt worker spending tax dollars creates wealth is like insisting that you can run faster by pulling on your own shirt.

Wealth is created when a person or corporation creates something new that someone else is willing to spend more money to purchase than it cost to produce/market in the first place.

"Yes, because getting your paycheck from the federal treasury is 'private income' now!"

Public employees are private citizens, and so any income they earn is their private income, yes. When they spend their income, they are putting money back into their local economy, helping keeping business in operation and thereby helping to create jobs and wealth.

"Er, considering that, as a baseline, there is $60 billion Per year in Medicare fraud...."

Hey, I'm not defending those who are defrauding they system. By all mean, let's go after those committing the fraud and prosecute them...many of the defrauders are doctors and other suppliers of medical care. You know, respected citizens and high income earners.

There's also well-documented fraud and waste in war expenditures. If we halt all our military operations--(a much better idea in any case than halting or cutting our Medicare program)--then we erase all that fraud, too.

"Defending the country is constitutionally proscribed, transferring wealth is not."

Transferring wealth is what all governments do, whether local, state, or federal, and throughout the world and in all of history. They appropriate public monies which are allocated to pay for the functions of government and also for public resources and to "provide for the general welfare."

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't mean provide for the general welfare meant cradle to grave government subsidies.

There is a difference between providing a safety net and providing dependency on government welfare. Unfortunately leftists hold the belief that people can't ever fend for themselves without public assistance.

Public employees are private citizens, and so any income they earn is their private income, yes. When they spend their income, they are putting money back into their local economy, helping keeping business in operation and thereby helping to create jobs and wealth.

But what are they producing?

Nothing.

The money they put into the local economy was first removed from the local economy to pay them.

You even said it when you used the word "back", but you obviously didn't really think it through.

Basic math:If I have 10 apples, and you take out 2, and then you give me 2 apples back, I did not have a 25% gain in apples. I had a 0% gain.

What I lost was restored, that's it.

You need to remember that money is just a marker for value. Wealth is only created by creating value. Admin never creates value. It may be a necessary cost, but it is not value.

In the same manner, an aircraft must have some parasitic drag...it can't be all lifting body. But you should always want to reduce parasitic drag where-ever and whenever possible.

Likewise, to have a good economy and strong nation, you should try to reduce non-value-producing workers where-ever and whenever possible.

Robert Cook said..."'You don't think government employees pay taxes, or go out to dinner, or buy consumer goods, or rent apartments or purchase homes and cars?'

"Yes. But they produce nothing."

Their spending creates wealth in the local economy...their income, spent locally, help keep local small business open and local citizens employed. The removal of government jobs removes that income from the local economy, hurting everyone, whether private or public sector.

(Sigh)

First principles, Robert, first principles. Where does the money to write the public employee checks come from in the first place?

"I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't mean provide for the general welfare meant cradle to grave government subsidies."

We hardly have that, but it means whatever the sitting government interprets it to mean at a given time. If the people do not support their interpretation, then--supposedly--the people can put the sitting government out and find replacements.

"Actually, Mr. Cooke, the CBO whose numbers Leftists touted when they validated the cooked numbers they were given on Obamacare says the whole Iraq war cost less than the stimulus that did NOTHING."

It's arguable whether the stimulus did "nothing" or "something," but the war in Iraq did worse than nothing...it visited devastation, death, mutilation, homelessness and lawlessness on a previously stable country. A country that was no threat to us, and thus our devastation was criminal not merely figuratively, not only economically, but literally.

If we had not entered into our failed wars into Afghanistan and Iraq, the dollars thrown into the shitpot to fund them would have remained in our federal budget.

"'Public employees are private citizens, and so any income they earn is their private income, yes. When they spend their income, they are putting money back into their local economy, helping keeping business in operation and thereby helping to create jobs and wealth.'

"But what are they producing?

"Nothing."

That requires a definition of terms as well as a look at which any given public employee does.

What do most private sector employees produce? What does a cashier a Wal-Mart "produce?" What does a waiter at Chilis or a bartender or a bud driver or flight attendant "produce?" What does an administrative assistant or middle manager at a business office "produce?"

We are a service economy now, not a production economy, and public sector employees are service employees just as most of our private sector employees are.

"...but it means whatever the sitting government interprets it to mean at a given time. If the people do not support their interpretation, then--supposedly--the people can put the sitting government out and find replacements..."

Not supposedly, we do. Then again when the majority believe they can vote themselves cradle to grave benefits from the taxpayer,.they'll soon find themselves like the Greeks; a collapsed economy with an unpayable debt burden brought on by unsustainable entitlement spending.

"...to have a good economy and strong nation, you should try to reduce non-value-producing workers where-ever and whenever possible."

What is a "non-value-producing" worker?

If it is someone who does not "produce anything," this applies to a majority of working Americans.

"That means eliminating govt jobs on a massive scale."

Merely shutting down the space shuttle program has cost Nasa up to 10,000 jobs in Florida, causing economic devastation--business closures and lost jobs for those who worked at those businesses that served the Nasa employees.

If we eliminate goverment jobs "on a massive scale"--unless there are ample private sector jobs available to offer them employment, in a country where we already have severe unemployment--this devastation will be repeated around the country "on a massive scale."

Funny you should mention NASA, Robert.The Shuttle program, which was a bloated bureaucratic disaster from inception has finally been put to rest.A private company-SpaceX- will launch its first commercial cargo flight from the cape to the ISS next month. SpaceX employs ex NASA personnel.Unless, of course, your intention is to keep a bloated inefficient bureaucracy on the payroll.

"The Shuttle program, which was a bloated bureaucratic disaster from inception has finally been put to rest.

"A private company-SpaceX- will launch its first commercial cargo flight from the cape to the ISS next month. SpaceX employs ex NASA personnel."

I guess we'll see how well SpaceX does, how many ex-Nasa employees they hire, and how efficacious their efforts. I don't know how much a "bloated bureaucratic disaster" Nasa's program was or not, but if that's your metric for killing or maintaining government programs, then we have ample reason--aside from the legal and humanitarian reasons--to immediately withdraw all personnel and materiel from all middle-eastern lands, (not to mention elsewhere we are interfering in the world, to great expense and disastrous ends). Maybe we should eliminate our military altogether and employ mercenaries solely and entirely to effect our imperialist goals.

"The Shuttle program, which was a bloated bureaucratic disaster from inception has finally been put to rest.

"A private company-SpaceX- will launch its first commercial cargo flight from the cape to the ISS next month. SpaceX employs ex NASA personnel."

I guess we'll see how well SpaceX does, how many ex-Nasa employees they hire, and how efficacious their efforts. I don't know how much a "bloated bureaucratic disaster" Nasa's program was or not, but if that's your metric for killing or maintaining government programs, then we have ample reason--aside from the legal and humanitarian reasons--to immediately withdraw all personnel and materiel from all middle-eastern lands, (not to mention elsewhere we are interfering in the world, to great expense and disastrous ends). Maybe we should eliminate our military altogether and employ mercenaries solely and entirely to effect our imperialist goals.

The public-private dichotomy in this thread clouds the issue, as does the focus on tangible output (steel, coal, spaceships). Economic productivity is tied to many aspects of the service and informational economies. Better and faster information increases productivity.

It is possible for the public sector to generate productivity. Legal definition of contract promotes productivity by making it easier for individuals and businesses to partner and trade. The setting of weights and measures underpins millions of small decisions made every day, from engineering to shelf-stocking.

The problem with the politicized economy isn't that government employees can't be productive, it's that it breeds zero-sum fatalists like Robert Cook who can't allow any government program to die, or any technology to change or any business to fail because of the short-term job disruption. (The key essay to read is That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen by Bastiat.)

You obviously completely misundertand my views, but I highlight this quote of yours because it describes very well where we (and the world) are headed, a result of the machinations of the financial elites domestically and globally: a return to feudalism.

Heya¡­my very first comment on your site. ,I have been reading your blog for a while and thought I would completely pop in and drop a friendly note. . It is great stuff indeed. I also wanted to ask..is there a way to subscribe to your site via email?